30,
2011
Nairobi,
K enya First,
we
want
to
say
how
pleased
we
are
to
be
mee7ng
at
the
I GF
in
Africa.
As
a
Tunisian,
I
can
bear
witness
that
the
movement
for
freedom
on
our
con7nent
has
been
facilitated
by
the
availability
of
new
ways
for
us
to
communicate.
W hen
the
W orld
Summit
on
the
I nforma7on
Society
was
held
in
my
country
in
2005
the
regime
thought
that
it
would
serve
to
legi7mate
its
dictatorship.
I nstead,
because
so
many
people
were
present,
like
those
who
are
here
in
this
hall,
those
of
us
in
the
country
who
wanted
a
new
future
were
inspired
by
the
show
of
support
from
abroad
for
our
striving
for
freedom.
Given
that
so
many
people
were
present
from
abroad
with
so
many
connec7ons
to
each
other
across
the
world,
the
eﬀect
on
the
con7nua7on
of
a
repressive
regime
was
exactly
the
reverse
of
what
the
dictator
thought
would
happen.
This
precedent
showed
other
dictatorships
that
think
they
can
exploit
the
magniﬁcent
prospects
of
the
New
W orld
I nforma7on
Society
can
also
be
undone.
I
am
aNending
the
I GF
for
the
ﬁrst
7me
and
I
am
part
of
a
group
of
internet
freedom
ac7vists.
W e
come
from
Tunisia,
Belarus,
Indonesia,
P akistan,
I ran,
C hina,
Brazil,
Malaysia,
Thailand,
Nigeria,
Russia
and
Bahrain.
As
diverse
as
we
are,
we
all
agree
on
the
following:
We
appeal
to
the
democracies
to
enact
policies
and
legisla7on
that
prevent
repressive
regimes
that
con7nue
to
oppress
their
peoples.
This
means
that
the
export
of
technologies
that
can
be
used
to
maintain
dictatorships
should
systema7cally
be
banned
by
the
world's
democracies.
Voluntary
codes
of
conduct
adopted
by
major
companies
are
a
posi7ve
step
that
should
be
backed
up
by
strong
legisla7on
enacted
by
their
home
governments.
Some
companies
have
indicated
that
they
would
welcome
such
legisla7on
to
create
a
level
playing
ﬁeld.
Ac7vists
and
ordinary
ci7zens
everywhere,
especially
in
repressive
regimes
need
secure
social
networks.
W e
have
seen
that
social
networks
provide
a
powerful
tool
against
repression.
Ac7vists
need
such
networks.
But
those
who
provide
those
services
should
therefore
make
it
possible
for
democra7c
movements
to
communicate
amongst
themselves
in
a
secure
way.
I n
that
regard,
privacy
and
the
right
to
anonymity
are
major
factors
for
security.
Any
viola7ons
of
those
principles
must
be
the
excep7on
in
extraordinary
circumstances
deﬁned
by
law
in
accordance
with
the
Universal
D eclara7on
of
H uman
Rights. There
is
always
a
good
excuse
by
dictators
to
limit
our
freedoms,
whether
in
the
name
of
na7onal
security,
cultural
protec7on,
respect
for
religion,
or
protec7on
of
oﬃcials
against
insult.
These
are
all
amongst
the
pretexts
for
limi7ng
our
human
rights.
There
are
just
so
many
diﬀerent
ways
of
describing
censorship,
against
which
the
I GF
should
stand.
These
essen7al
demands
are
not,
of
course,
the
only
concerns
of
the
H uman
Rights
community.
But,
if
these
were
to
be
followed,
they
would
clearly
improve
the
climate
for
internet
governance
in
the
world.